Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:32:28 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: SC's supernode system variant  (Read 982 times)
JohnDoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
October 12, 2011, 09:17:13 PM
 #1

By now it's clear that the majority of people reject the idea that wealth is proportional to the trustworthiness of a node, so how about this: instead of directly giving supernode status to wealthiest people we vote for supernodes (which may not necessarily be wealthy) with our money, in the ratio of 1 coin = 1 vote. This way poorer people can band together and surpass the voting power of the rich ones to elect a supernode of their choosing. It also allows the rich to relinquish their supernode power and give it to a more trusted member of the network. Voting would be done with a special transaction which basically says that any money held by the sending address is a vote for node X.  

Would this work better?

For reference, here is the original system: http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php
1481221948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221948
Reply with quote  #2

1481221948
Report to moderator
1481221948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221948
Reply with quote  #2

1481221948
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481221948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221948
Reply with quote  #2

1481221948
Report to moderator
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 12, 2011, 09:21:20 PM
 #2

Voting is probably preferable to a dictatorship. However youre not accounting for the future when supernodes will be distributed and competing ?

coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


firstbits.com/1ce5j


View Profile WWW
October 12, 2011, 09:48:29 PM
 #3

I like the concept of voting, but it seems like it wil bloat the blockchain.

t3a
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 179


View Profile
October 12, 2011, 11:38:40 PM
 #4

So now a 51% attack would involve getting 51% of the coins.

Actually if there are multiple contenders, 5% may be all that's needed to win the vote.

Advertise here for 10btc/day
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 12, 2011, 11:45:58 PM
 #5

51% votes to take the other 49% coins and theres fuck all you can do about it ?

Democracy is and always will be two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Unless you can come up with a system for voting thats as elegant as bitcoin is for currency you wont get anywhere.



BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 13, 2011, 02:08:13 PM
 #6

That would only apply if there's only 1 supernode. If the protocol allows a maximum of 100 supernodes then 49% of the coins could elect up to 49 supernodes.

Doesn't that still mean that the others can perform a 51% supernode attack and probabilisticly rewrite the block chain at will?
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!